Good Afternoon.
Announcing outstanding financial successes for Rangers PLC the then Chairman of the club opened his Chairman’s report in the annual financial statements with the following words:
“Last summer I explained that the Club, after many years of significant investment in our playing squad
and more recently in our state of the art facility at Murray Park, had embarked on a three year business
plan to stabilise and improve the Club’s finances. The plan also recognised the need to react to the
challenging economic conditions facing football clubs around the world.
Following a trend over a number of years of increasing year on year losses, I am pleased to report that
in the first year of this plan we have made important progress by reversing this trend. Our trading loss
for last year of £11.2m reflects a £7.9m improvement versus the £19.1m loss for the previous year and
although it will take more time to completely reach our goals, this is a key milestone. We also intend to
make significant further progress by the end of the current financial year. This improvement is the
consequence of having a solid strategy and the commitment and energy to implement the changes it requires”
Later on in the same statement the chairman would add:
“Another key part of our plan is associated with the Rangers brand and our Retail Division goes from strength to strength. Our financial results this year have been significantly enhanced by an outstanding performance in merchandising Rangers products, in particular replica kit, which makes our Retail Division one of the most successful in Europe.”
In the same set of financial reports, the CEO would report:
“To further strengthen Rangers hospitality portfolio, a new dedicated sponsor’s lounge was unveiled this season. The Carling Lounge is a first for the Club and was developed in conjunction with our new sponsor, Carling. ”
and
“Our innovative events programme continues to grow and this year saw a record number of official events including the highly successful annual Hall of Fame Awards Ceremony, Player of the Year and 50 Championships Gala Dinner, all of which catered for up to 1000 guests.
At Rangers, we continually develop our portfolio of products and as a key area of income for the Club, we evaluate the market for new revenue opportunities on an ongoing basis in order to exceed our existing and potential customer expectations and needs.
Demand for season tickets reached an all time high last season with a record 42,508 season ticket holders in comparison with the previous season`s figure of 40,320. Over 36,000 of these season ticket holders renewed for this season – a record number.
For the new season, we are delighted to welcome brewing giant, Carling on board as our Official Club sponsor. Carling is one of the UK’s leading consumer brands with a proven track record in football sponsorship.
The Club also continues to work with a number of multinational blue chip brands such as National Car Rental, Sony Playstation 2, Bank of Scotland and Coca-Cola. This year, we will also experience the evolution of the Honda deal via Hyndland Honda and welcome the mobile communications giant T-Mobile to our ranks.”.
The year was 2003 and in the previous 24 months Rangers Football Club, owned and operated as a private fiefdom by Sir David Murray, had made operational losses of some £30 million.
Yes – 30 MILLION POUNDS.
Of course the chairman’s report for 2003 was written by John F Mclelland CBE and the CEO was one Martin Bain Esq.
As Mr Mclelland clearly stated, by 2003 the club already had a trend of increasing year on year losses covering a number of years and was losing annual sums which stretched into millions, if not tens of millions, of pounds.
However, the acquisition of Rangers Football Club was absolutely vital to David Murray’s personal business growth, and his complete control of the club as his own private business key was more important than any other business decision he had made before buying Rangers or since.
When he persuaded Gavin Masterton to finance 100% of the purchase price of the club, Murray had his finest business moment.
By getting control of Rangers, Murray was able to offer entertainment, hospitality, seeming privilege and bestow favour on others in a way that was hitherto undreamed of, and he bestowed that largesse on any number of “existing and potential clients” and contacts – be they the clients and contacts related to Rangers Football Club or the existing and potential clients of David Murray, his businesses, his banks, or anyone in any field that he chose to court for the purposes of potential business.
His business.
It wasn’t only journalists who benefited from the succulent lamb treatment.
Accountants,lawyers, surveyors, broadcasters, football officials, people in industry and construction, utilities, financiers and other areas of business were all invited inside the sacred House of Murray and given access to the great man of business “and owner of Rangers” while attending the “record number of official (hospitality) events”.
Twelve months on from when John McLelland made those statements in the 2003 accounts, David Murray was back in the chair at Ibrox and he presented the 2004 financials.
In the intervening 12 months Rangers had gained an additional £10 million from Champions League income and had received £8.6 million in transfer fees from the sale of Messrs Ferguson, Amoruso and McCann. Not only that, the Rangers board had managed to reduce the club’s wage bill by £5 million. Taking all three figures together comes to some £23.6 million in extra income or savings.
Yet, the accounts for 2004 showed that the club made an operational loss of almost £6 million and overall debt had risen by an additional £7 million to £97.4 million.
However, the 2004 accounts were also interesting for another reason.
Rangers PLC had introduced payments “to employees trusts” into their accounts for the first time in 2001 and in that year they had paid £1million into those trusts. Just three years later, the trust payments recorded in the accounts had risen to £7.3 million per annum — or to put it another way to 25% of the annual wage bill though no one in Scottish Football asked any questions about that!
By the following year, the chairman announced that the 2004 operational loss had in fact been £10.4million but that the good news was that the 2005 operational loss was only £7.8 million. However Rangers were able to post a profit before taxation if they included the money obtained from transfers (£8.4 million) and the inclusion of an extraordinary profit of £14,999,999 made on buying back the shares of a subsidiary company for £1 which they had previously sold for £15 million.
All of which added up to a whopping great profit of ……… £12.4 million!
I will leave you to do the maths on 2005.
Oh and of course these accounts included the detail that 3000 Rangers fans had joined David Murray in participating in the November ’94 share issue where the club managed to raise £51,430,995 in fresh capital most of which was provided by Mr Murray… sorry I mean MIH ….. sorry that should read Bank of Scotland …… or their shareholders……. or should that be the public purse?
The notable items in the 2006 accounts included the announcement of a ten year deal with JJB Sports to take over the merchandising operation of the club and increased revenue from an extended run in the Champion’s League. However, the profit before tax was declared at only£0.1 million in comparison to the £12.4 million of the year before but then again that £12.4 million had included player sales of £8.4 million and the £15 million sweety bonus from the repurchase of ones own former subsidiary shares for £1.
Jumping to 2008 Rangers saw a record year in terms of turnover which had risen to £64.5 million which enabled the company to record a profit on ordinary activities before taxation of £6.57 million although it should be pointed out that wages and bonuses were up at 77% of turnover and that a big factor in the Rangers income stream was corporate hospitality and the top line of income was shown as “gate receipts and hospitality”.
However, 2009 saw a calamitous set of figures. Whilst Alastair Johnston tried to put a brave chairman’s face on it, the year saw an operating loss of £17.325 million which was softened only by player disposals leading to a loss before taxation of a mere £14.085 million.
Fortunately Sir David did not have to report these figures as he chose to stand down as chairman in August and so Johnston stepped in and announced that he was deeply honoured to do so.
In 2010, the income stream jumped from £39.7 million to over £56 million with the result that the club showed a profit before taxation of £4.209 million.
However, by that time the corporate hospitality ticket that was Rangers Football Club was done for as a result of matters that had nothing to do with events on the football field in the main.
First, the emergence of the Fergus McCann run Celtic had brought a real business and sporting challenge. This was something that Murray had not previously faced in the football business.
Second,the Bank of Scotland had gone bust and Lloyds could not and would not allow Murray to continually borrow vast sums of money on the basis of revalued assets and outrageous hospitality.
Third, the UEFA fair play rules came into being and demanded that clubs at least act on a semblance of proper corporate governance and fiscal propriety.
Lastly,Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tightened up the law on the use of EBT’s which meant that Rangers could no longer afford to buy in the players that brought almost guaranteed success against domestic opposition.
On average, since 2002 Rangers PLC had lost between £7 million – £8 million per year – or roughly £650,000 per month if you like – yet for the better part of a decade David Murray had been able to persuade the Bank of Scotland that this was a business that was worthy of ever greater financial support or that he himself and his MIH business was of such value that the Banks should support him in supporting the Ibrox club whilst operating in this fashion.
Of course, had Murray’s Rangers paid tax on all player remunerations then the losses would have been far larger.
Meanwhile, all the other clubs in Scottish football who banked with the Bank of Scotland faced funding cuts and demands for repayment with the bank publicly proclaiming that it was overexposed to the football market in Scotland.
But no one asked any questions about why the bank should act one way with Murray’s club but another way with all others. No one in football, no one in the media and no one from the world of business.
Looking back,it is hard to imagine a business which has been run on such a consistent loss making basis being allowed to continue by either its owners or by its bankers. However, a successful and funded Rangers was so important to the Murray group that David Murray was clearly willing to lose millions year after year to keep the Gala dinners and corporate hospitality going.
Rangers were Murray’s big PR vehicle and the club was essentially used by him to open the doors which would allow him to make more money elsewhere on a personal basis and if it meant Rangers cutting every corner and accumulating massive losses, unsustainable losses, then so be it.
Today, the new regime at Ibrox run the current business in a way which clocks up the same colossal annual losses whilst the club competes outwith Scotland’s top division. Each day we hear that the wage bill is unsustainable, that the playing staff are overpaid, that the stadium needs massive investment and that the fans are opposed to the stadium itself being mortgaged and the club being in hawk to lenders.
Yet, in the Murray era the Stadium was revalued time and time again and its revaluation was used as the justification for ever greater borrowing on the Rangers accounts. The playing staff were massively overpaid and financially assisted by the EBT’s and most years the Chairman’s annual statement announced huge losses despite regular claims of record season ticket sales, record hospitality income, European income, shirt sponsorship and the outsourcing of all merchandising to JJB sports instead of Sports Direct.
The comparison between the old business and the current one is clear for all to see.
It should be noted, that since the days of Murray, no major banking institution has agreed to provide the Ibrox business with any banking facilities. Not under Whyte, not under Green, not under anyone.
Yet few ask why that should be.
The destruction of the old Rangers business led those in charge of Scottish football to announce that Armageddon was on the horizon if it had not actually arrived, yet today virtually all Scottish clubs are in a better financial and business state than back in the bad old days of the Bank of Scotland financed SPL. Some have succumbed to insolvency, and others have simply cut their cloth, changed their structure, sought, and in some cases attracted, new owners and moved on in terms of business.
In general, Scottish Football has cleaned house at club level.
Now, David Murray has “cleaned house” in that MIH has bitten the dust and walked down insolvency road.
What is interesting is that the Murray brand still has that capacity to get out a good PR message when it needs to. Despite the MIH pension fund being short of money for some inexplicable reason, last week it was announced that the family controlled Murray Estates had approached those in charge of MIH and had agreed to buy some key MIH assets for something in the region of £13.9 million.
The assets concerned are land banks which at some point will be zoned for planning and which will undoubtedly bring the Murray family considerable profit in the future, with some of those assets already looking as if they will produce a return sooner rather than later.
However, what is not commented upon in the mainstream press is the fact that Murray Estates had the ability to pay £13.9 Million for anything at all and that having that amount of money to spend the Murray camp has chosen not to buy any football club down Govan way.
Perhaps, it has been realised that a football club which loses millions of pounds each year is not such a shrewd investment and that the Murray family money would be better spent elsewhere?
Perhaps, it has been realised that the culture of wining, dining, partying and entertaining to the most lavish and extravagant extent will not result in the banks opening their vaults any more?
Perhaps, it has been realised that the Rangers brand has been so badly damaged over the years that it is no longer the key to the golden door in terms of business, finance and banking and that running a football club in 2015 involves a discipline and a set of skills that David Murray and his team do not have experience of?
What is clear, is that the Murray years at Ibrox were not good for the average Rangers fan in the long term and that when you have a football club – any football club – being run for the private benefit of one rich individual, or group of individuals, then the feelings and passions of the ordinary fan will as often as not be forgotten when that individual or his group choose to move on once they have decided that they no longer wish to play with their toy football club.
David Murray did not make money directly out of Rangers Football Club. He used it as a key to open other doors for him and to get him a seat at other tables and into a different type of “club” altogether. He did not run the club in a day to day fashion that was designed to bring stability and prolonged financial, or playing, success to the club. its investors and its fans. He did not preside over Ibrox during a period of sustained financial gain.
Mike Ashley will not subsidise 2015 version of Rangers to anything like the same extent that the Bank of Scotland did in the 90’s and naughties.
However, Ashley, like Murray, will use his control of the Rangers brand to open doors for him elsewhere in the sports retail market, and he will use the Rangers contract with Sports Direct to make a handsome profit. He will also control all the advertising revenue just as he does at Newcastle. In short, Mr Ashley is only interested in The Rangers with a view to using it as a stepping stone to achieve other things elsewhere.
However, don’t take my word for any of this, take the opinion of someone who knows.
Mr Dave King is quoted today as saying the following about the current board of Directors who are in charge of the current Ibrox holding company.
“History will judge this board as one of the worst the club has ever had. There is not one individual who puts the club above personal interest.”
That is an interesting observation from a man who became a non executive director of the old Rangers holding company in 2000 and who had a front row pew for every set of accounts and all the financial statements referred to above.
Whether or not Mr King is a glib and shameless liar is a matter of South African judicial opinion. Whether or not he can spot someone who puts their own self interest ahead of the interests of Rangers Football Club and the supporters of the club is a matter that should be discussed over some fine wine, some succulent lamb and whatever postprandial entertainment you care to imagine.
I wonder if he has ever read the accounts of Rangers PLC and compared them to the corresponding accounts of MIH for the same period?
Ashley continues to win friends and influence people
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/deplorable-mike-ashley-criticised-by-ministers-after-offers-of-help-for-sacked-worker.116682728?utm_source=headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email%2Balert
From Rangers fans. Vendetta & targeted kind of phrases.
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/754824461?-11344:801
Call me paranoid he stated. Well ok you are paranoid and I am sad to say it seems like you are not the one within your fan base.
Really why have football rules, or tax regulations seems to be the train of thought down Govan way.
ecobhoy says:
January 23, 2015 at 9:02 am
13 1 i
Rate This
beatipacificiscotia says:
January 23, 2015 at 8:32 am
The first EBT recipient was none other than our chicken eating, beer swilling fisherman – Paul Gascoigne. The year? 1995.
I don’t have any documentary evidence to back this up, other than I have heard the documentation does exist and Craig Whyte has it.
==================================================================
Ever since taxation began there have been schemes devised to reduce the amount of taxation payable. Some have been legal and others illegal and often even legal schemes become illegal as legislation is tightened to close legal loopholes which have been exploited.
There has never been a shred of evidence that Rangers operated EBTs in 1995 and afaik they simply didn’t exist in the form that Rangers later adopted.
In the late 1990s the vehicle that Rangers operated to reduce tax payable by players was DOS and we only have evidence that three players were recipients of these schemes IIRC from 1998 onwards – none of whom was Gazza.
The expert on all this is Auldheid and I’m sure he will post on the suggestion and I am happy to defer to him on the subject.
It must always be borne in mind that not all tax reduction schemes are illegal and often when they become so it’s because the operator of them changes the very complex structure painstakingly created by the originator to ensure that no laws are broken.
So I’m afraid without a single fact a rumour remains simply a rumour although many turn into squirrels which inadvertantly perhaps divert attention from trying to understand what is currently happening 20 years after Gazza’s alleged EBT.
=======================================================
When Maurice Johnston (Le Petite Merde) was signed from under the nose of Billy McNeil the signing on fee of £1 Million was the issue.
Johnston was asked why he took Murray’s million rather than Celtic’s million, he responded “Mr. Murray will pay my tax”.
I’ve since wondered…..As Clint Eastwood would say…………..”Well………Did he”?
Allyjambo says:
January 23, 2015 at 10:25 am
0 1 i
Rate This
tayred says:
January 23, 2015 at 9:57am
I’ve never been able to understand why they don’t just make all tax avoidance schemes illegal until proven otherwise. If a smart ass CA comes up with a scheme he could, at his own expense, attempt to prove it’s legality before implementing it. Otherwise, if anyone uses it, they get done and no questions asked. I can see no moral argument for the existence of any tax avoidance scheme and the only argument for not paying tax would be if it was unfair, in which case none of us would pay any.
……………………………………………………….
I wonder if any of you fine gentlemen have paid money into a pension scheme. That is a perfectly legal way of avoiding tax and saving for retirement. Equally moving savings from a savings account to a cash ISA, means you are avoiding paying tax on the interest gained, assuming of course that you are not a non-taxpayer status.
It’s worth remembering that some tax avoidance “schemes” are deliberately created to encourage a certain type of behaviour and not all can be written off as immoral. For example, pension contributions are deductible from gross pay for tax purposes, to encourage tax payers to save for retirement.
normanbatesmumfc says:
January 23, 2015 at 10:58 am
++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly, couldn’t have put it better myself.
Dismiss what I have posted as a “squirrel”, or any other woodland animal, if you want. It is a genuine question. Have we been led away from the truth by the PR Dark Arts?
Relevant, irrelevant, legal, illegal – I can’t say without access to the documentation. It potentially opens a significantly large can of worms.
normanbatesmumfc says:
January 23, 2015 at 10:58 am
I wonder if any of you fine gentlemen have paid money into a pension scheme. That is a perfectly legal way of avoiding tax and saving for retirement. Equally moving savings from a savings account to a cash ISA, means you are avoiding paying tax on the interest gained, assuming of course that you are not a non-taxpayer status.
===========
You are conflating personal tax reliefs which are an integral part of our tax system, and available to all who qualify, with artificial tax avoidance schemes, which attempt to exploit weaknesses in the drafting of certain parts of the tax legislation.
Such complex schemes are only available to people or companies with a lot of money, because very expensive specialist tax advisers are required to set up and operate the schemes.
The comparison you are trying to make is simply laughable (in my opinion). But then in mitigation, maybe you don’t know much about tax avoidance.
Bawsman says:
January 23, 2015 at 10:48 am
—
Maurice probably felt he deserved to earn a bit extra at Rangers because he had to sort out all his own kit.
toadinthehole says:
January 23, 2015 at 11:05 am
beatipacificiscotia says:
January 23, 2015 at 11:17 am
There in lies the difference. What gets peoples goat, rightly, is the way that members of the Institutes of Consigliere, & the Learned Societies of Consigliere twist the spirit of regulations, designed to encourage socially good behaviour, beyond all recognition.
Isn’t the real problem the way that ethical standards in the professions, & business generally, have been steadily eroded since the Big Bang?
Re Tax avoidance Pensions/ISAs
See I knew folk would come back with perfectly reasonable suggestions to ruin my argument 🙂
I don’t have the terminology or knowledge to argue these things out fully (partly cause those in the know seem to enjoy making it as indecipherable as possible to your average person in the street). But I think we can all agree there is a point somewhere along this line that becomes morally/ethically inexcusable.
Any scheme that allows you to purchase players that otherwise you couldn’t afford unless you start withholding tax payments for example. Any scheme that allows you to make massive profits but then only pay a fraction of the tax that should be collectable from that profit.. etc… etc…
They are quite distinct from Wee Senga’s ISA or Big Shuggies pension pot. But my main point was the assertion that it is in someway everyones duty to withhold as much money from the taxman as possible, albeit legally, is one that I do not subscribe to.
Sadly, in this wonderful society that possibly is the case, those with the knowledge and a bit cash to hand win, those that don’t – well nobody cares about them do they? Sounds a bit like a certain era in Scottish football really.
ecobhoy says:
January 23, 2015 at 9:43 am
Should Ashley win the Ibrox Battle – and I expect him to – I genuinely believe the bulk of Rangers fans won’t put-up with the Newcastle model. And why should they?
======================================================
Eco – mainly agree – except for the bit above. The fans have proven themselves uniquely unable to united and act effectively to any meaningful goal. There seems to be a sickening void between the neanderthals and the wannabe billionaires. Where are the lawyers, doctors, teachers, engineers, managing directors, IT & marketing guys etc who could come together and lead an organization to represent the reasonable fans? I suspect void used to be populated by reasonable people who see what is happening and want nothing to do with it. The people that currently represent the disparate fan groups are a good diagnosis of the ailment, but no kind of remedy.
normanbatesmumfc says:
January 23, 2015 at 10:58 am
And both schemes were legalised before implementation and designed to improve society by encouraging savings. They are also open to everyone regardless of wealth and the ability to pay someone to help you avoid paying income tax. The examples you gave are exactly what I meant when I said all tax avoidance schemes should be proven legal before their implementation. Everything else is just an attempt to screw the system for the benefit of the greedy, not to enhance the society we live in.
I have little doubt that Rangers employed all types of tax avoidance/evasion schemes throughout the reign of the untouchable (S)DM.
The story about Mo Johnson is interesting and would suggest they were “at it” as far back as the late 80’s!
Two things that still intrigue me are the identity of the 15 as yet unnamed recipients of EBT’s as per Mark Daly’s documentary and the fact that at the height of the developing scandal (cicra Mar 1012), Traynor was regularly on the radio stating that there was so much more that could come out. Stage managed PR has no doubt prevented this happening. I daresay a lot of it would be nuclear!
Allyjambo says:
January 23, 2015 at 11:36 am
============================================
Tax is a complex system of carrots and sticks used by politicians to motivate or deter certain behaviours. It may be bribing multi-nationals to do research here rather than the US or persuading the middle class to save more this way rather than that way, our supporting some ideological/social activity such as public schools or trade unions.
My point is the system is exactly what the Govt of the day wants it to be – they make the rules, they interpret the rules, they enforce the rules and they can change the rules at any moment. So any Govt politicians bleating about people avoiding / evading tax are doing what politicians tend to do when they move their lips.
The thing is the people designing the rules don’t always think the rules through fully and/or don’t anticipate how others can twist and exploit them -= especially international rules. Until successive Govts start paying private sector salaries and bonuses, the brightest tax specialists will be the more numerous private sector poachers and the modestly paid civil servants will be the under staffed gamekeepers.
Evading tax is illegal and the Govt can and should prosecute vigorously. The Govt totally controls the budget for doing so.
Avoidance is simply using the system effectively to avoid paying voluntary tax.
The grey area in between evasion and avoidance is the Govt’s inability to first design a water tight tax system and then fix it promptly when holes are found. Some say some holes are left intentional – but I won’t go there now.
Whether the tax system is fair or unfair to certain groups in society is pure politics.
BTW, company officers have a legal duty to act in the interests their shareholders which includes avoiding the payment of voluntary taxes (tax avoidance) – which means paying for professional advice in reasonable proportion to the benefits gained.
I really wonder what goes through some people’s minds at times.
Celtic have announced a donation of £10,000 to the Fernando Ricksen appeal. To me a great gesture to a very deserving cause with the poor man suffering from a terrible disease which could affect any of us.
On the good shop Rangers Media how is this being received? With loads of criticism and cynical comments.
Truly appalling in their part but a big well done, from me at least, to Celtic.
As has already been stated, the notion that ‘Gazza’ may have been paid, partly or otherwise, through an EBT is pure speculation. In fact I think we can go further and entirely discount the specific EBT vehicle allegation leaving us with a more generic aggressive tax avoidance mechanism.
I can’t source the quote, but from memory did Hugh Adam, the deceased Rangers director, not state fairly unambiguously that dodgy remuneration had been normal practice for many years before Rangers started using EBTs.
So speculation possibly backed up by one reliable source. It would hardly come as a shock, however, if there was some sort of truth in the allegation.
OT, but all the talk of Gazza and EBTs reminded me of the story from his time at Spurs when upon hearing that Gary Lineker had received a cortisone injection, he asked “what kind of car is that?”
jimmci
To be fair, amidst the cynicism and hatred there is a reasonable amount of praise too, even if rather grudging.
CQN
Does anybody know if the CQN advert is going in the Herald and if so, when ??
ecobhoy says:
January 23, 2015 at 9:43 am
—————————
Regarding why Ashley cant find a buyer for Newcastle. I’m going to say;
1, the debt the club owes big Mike
2, all the retail and image rights have been hived off by big Mike.
Effectively you would be buying a shell of a club reliant on whatever gate and TV money is left.
Although that is a substantial sum in the EPL, you would be materially disadvantaged by not controlling income streams your competitors take for granted.
Has the catering been hived off?
Are there service contracts leaching money from Newcastle?
I assume a bit of due diligence soon uncovers the truth about the holes in the clubs income streams and that has put off ALL potential buyers.
readcelt says:
January 23, 2015 at 12:36 pm
Exactly, and that is why I believe the Ashley Diet Plan, will be disastrous for football
normanbatesmumfc says:
January 23, 2015 at 10:58 am
I wonder if any of you fine gentlemen have paid money into a pension scheme. That is a perfectly legal way of avoiding tax and saving for retirement
Yes it is legal, but I would not refer to it as “avoiding tax” since it is usually referred to as “Tax Relief” A method by which successive governments “encourage” people to save for retirement. However this can be changed at any time.
Witness MIRAS (Mortgage interest relief at source) introduced in the United Kingdom by Chancellor of the Exchequer Roy Jenkins in 1969 in a bid to encourage home ownership; it allowed borrowers tax relief for interest payments on their mortgage. Abolished in 2000.
In other words they are incentives
Re DJ’s comments in the Evening Times….what is it about the mentality of ex players who now ply their trade in the media? Safe to say were he an ex boxer instead of a footballer he’d be a classed as punch drunk.
mcfc says:
January 23, 2015 at 12:16 pm
Totally agree with you regarding the government not changing the taxation laws because they suit, either themselves personally, or the people who fund their parties. I don’t expect that to change, ever. It’s just that it would be so simple, if the will was genuinely there, to change things, and negate that lack of expertise within HMRC, by leaving it up to the smarter avoidance experts to prove their schemes’ legality before implementing them.
There is a huge difference between a government creating tax advantages (and ensuring they are legal before implementation) to encourage savings and investments, industry expansion, building new homes, expanding the economy, all done for the benefit the country as a whole, than clever, high paid tax advisers creating schemes to benefit a relatively few wealthy people that the country then has to finance investigation of and court cases to try to prove they are illegal.
Anyway, turning this subject into a bit of a squirrel!
I don’t think there is anything untoward about Murray paying Maurice Johnston’s tax back in the 80’s (assuming he did actually pay it).
It is normal practice for agents of higher paid players to negotiate on the basis of a “Net” figure, leaving the club carry the risks associated with changing tax rates or NICs.
However, I do remember Andrew Thornhill QC making an argument to Lord Doherty at the UTTT that players had the understanding that “Net” meant free of tax, rather than tax having already been paid.
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to imply only negativity on The Bears Den towards the donation. There is plenty of appreciative and grateful comment about it. There will obviously be partisanship on supporters websites but to misrepresent the overall thoughts on the donation is worthy of anything in the MSM. As for the chat about Mo Johnstons ‘EBT’…. surely TSFM is better than a Rangers speculation site? Please tell me it is.
jimlarkin says:
January 23, 2015 at 12:35 pm
8 0 i
Rate This
CQN
Does anybody know if the CQN advert is going in the Herald and if so, when ??
================================
Sunday 25th
@Bawsman
An excellent day, too. Supporters the country o’er, shall brothers be, for a’ that.
woodstein says:
January 23, 2015 at 12:58 pm
normanbatesmumfc says:
January 23, 2015 at 10:58 am
I wonder if any of you fine gentlemen have paid money into a pension scheme. That is a perfectly legal way of avoiding tax and saving for retirement
Yes it is legal, but I would not refer to it as “avoiding tax” since it is usually referred to as “Tax Relief” A method by which successive governments “encourage” people to save for retirement. However this can be changed at any time.
Witness MIRAS (Mortgage interest relief at source) introduced in the United Kingdom by Chancellor of the Exchequer Roy Jenkins in 1969 in a bid to encourage home ownership; it allowed borrowers tax relief for interest payments on their mortgage. Abolished in 2000.
In other words they are incentives.
=============================================================
However it’s worth remembering that the reason the incentives are given is to promote political policies.
Get people to save for their old age and that will reduce the amount of State Benefits that require to be paid.
MIRAS is obviously in the same category because if people buy their own home it reduced the amount of local authority houses that needed to be built and the cost of maintaining them. There was also a boost to the building industry.
Even if these schemes start-off as politically ‘neutral’ they can often turn into political hot-potatoes 🙄
beatipacificiscotia says:
January 23, 2015 at 1:45 pm
Beats,
My post wasn’t in response to the Paul Gascoine story, but about tax avoidance in general. Sorry if it appeared to be about what you informed us of. It would certainly be interesting if it was true, though it does strike me that it could be a red herring put out there as the usual deflection just prior to a bad news day for TRFC.
beatipacificiscotia says:
January 23, 2015 at 11:17 am
normanbatesmumfc says:
January 23, 2015 at 10:58 am
++++++++++++++++++++
Exactly, couldn’t have put it better myself.
Dismiss what I have posted as a “squirrel”, or any other woodland animal, if you want. It is a genuine question. Have we been led away from the truth by the PR Dark Arts?
Relevant, irrelevant, legal, illegal – I can’t say without access to the documentation. It potentially opens a significantly large can of worms.
==========================================================
I’m still lost about this one. What ‘significantly large can of worms’ does it potentially open?
We know that 3 DOS cases exist and the evidence pertaining to these were kept hidden from LNS. The detailed expose done on this by Auldheid and the campaign he has waged is simply magnificent.
The SFA, SPFL, the lawyers, LNS and Uncle Tom Cobley know what went down. We all know about the Wee Tax Case. So what exactly is being hinted at?
Is it that because Gazza allegedly – with not a shred of evidence produced – got some kind of EBT which may or may not have been legal at the time and therefore Rangers possibly shouldn’t have won 9-in-a-row?
There are quite a number of reasons why Rangers shouldn’t have won 9-in-a-row and most are down to Celtic IMO. However as I said in my first post I don’t know whether this began as an inadvertant squirrel but it certainly has become one as I suspected it would.
Perhaps we should set up a TSFM Rumours Thread – with the strict proviso that proveable facts are banned 😉
Next, it’ll be:
EBTs = Envelopes, Brown, Totally stuffed…
As to the Ricksen donation – Well Done Celtic! I would expect no less.
There were a helluva lot of times I cursed him and in equal measure wished he was wearing hoops.
As to those who mock the sincerity of Celtic’s move then they are the same people who would have attacked Celtic for not making a donation.
They don’t represent the decent Rangers supporters many of whom I suspect are avoiding Ibrox like the plague in recent times.
The Rangers support has always had divisions which have become very deep and bitter in recent times over non-footballing issues.
The big question is whether these supporters will return – many are professional guys in their 30s to 50s – or turn to other passtimes or simply watch on the telly.
ecobhoy says:
January 23, 2015 at 2:22 pm
Well said.
The Ricksen game isn’t about Rangers, Celtic. or any of that crap.
Its about football coming together to honour and help one of their own, who is in the midst of a personal tragedy.
Ann Budge comments on last Friday’s events following her investigations.
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/4125
Allyjambo says:
January 23, 2015 at 1:22 pm
Totally agree with you regarding the government not changing the taxation laws because they suit, either themselves personally, or the people who fund their parties.
====================================================================
Sadly, we have a genration of slopey shouldered, middle-management polititians who are happy to distort statisitcs, misrepresent issues and bullshit the public to score petty political points to further their careers rather than taking responsibility for the long term good of the country and its people – no political bias here – they genuinely are all the same – with very few exceptions in my jaded opinion.
There waqs a story on the ET website about the need for guid Rainjurz men, like King, to steer the Good Ship ‘Jurz to safe shores. I pointed out men like King were the problem, a poster then implied it was unfair King “wasn’t allowed to buy Rangers” even though he didn’t make an offer… I tried to explain why these rukes might be in place:
It’s pretty much a no-no to sell assets for buttons to people who were responsible for the assets being devalued in the first place:
As an example: Ibrox & Murray Park were valued at over £120m in OldCo’s financial reports (09/02/11).
Based on Rangers going in to liquidation “the figure attributed to Freehold Properties” on the CVA report was “stated to be £4 £4,590,214.” (11/07/12), so that’s a £115m (paper) loss in value in 18 months (revalued to 4% of peak).
After the Green acquisition of these assets (which were sold for £4.6m of assets) were revalued to be worth £45m (+978%), on 20/12/12, a paper profit of just shy of 1000%/£40m.
And of course if the properties were valued even aat the lower £45m mark, it’s be no bother to get a “mortgage” out for say £20m, paying off the acquisition price in full, having £15m in the bank, payment terms of paying off the debt over 25 years at say £1m a year (£25m), but having a tenant paying say £2.5m a year rent over the same period – including maintenance – £62.5m. That’d give you £15m in the bank (300% profit) a £45m (or £120m) property portfolio and all costs (incl maintenance) covered in between.
So you can see why a) King wasn’t allowed to buy, b) why spivs are circling like vultures.
Raith are standing firm, so far, on selling tickets direct to Rangers fans
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30946702
scapaflow says:
January 23, 2015 at 3:35 pm
0 0 Rate This
Raith are standing firm, so far, on selling tickets direct to Rangers fans
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30946702
====================================================
Rightly so in my view.
Jockybhoy
“It’s pretty much a no-no to sell assets for buttons to people who were responsible for the assets being devalued in the first place”
………………
I’m sure I read the other day that after M.I.H went bust
The MURRAY family were allowed to purchase assets “worth” up to £80,000,000 for only £13,000,000
I wonder if these assets were advertised for sale anywhere
….nah, didn’t think so !!
easyJambo says:
January 23, 2015 at 2:52 pm
Ann Budge comments on last Friday’s events following her investigations.
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/4125
======================================================
What a simply novel approach – actually answer the fans’ questions and deal with the complaints raised in a serious and transparent manner.
There might be hope for Scottish Football yet if we employ more women at the top levels 😎
Ann Budge is a breath of fresh air. Honesty, transparency, comment without fear or favour. We need more like her.
beatipacificiscotia says:
January 23, 2015 at 4:03 pm
I think I heard reference to Hugh Adam stating that similar EBT payments were made in the mid-90’s. Hearsay evidence but it ties in. I had heard that before, though never until today specific reference to a player who received the benefits.
————————————————————–
It’s common knowledge and has been for some time that DOS payments were made which formed the basis of the Wee Tax Case liability owed to HMRC by Rangers and which the club accepted liability for.
Auldheid explained back in July 2014:
Aberdeen Asset Management became the test case for HMRC after they used a DOS scheme between 2000-2003 to remunerate directors. It was 2007 before it was challenged by HMRC and 2011 before the FTTT ruled it illegal although it dragged on for another couple of years after that with appeals that failed.
A detailed report of how it all panned out can be found at: http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/markets-economy/aberdeen-asset-falls-foul-of-tax-tribunal-over-its-7m-scheme-tax-avoidance-scheme-falls-foul-of-the-tribunal-1.1083671.
So if CW has proof that an Ibrox player had a DOS in 1995 then there will be others and this would lead one to wonder why those in charge of the club at that time did not make this information available to HMRC or the Footballing Authorities.
So perhaps our squirrel might have very sharp teeth and claws 😆
Just read Phil’s new post.
Excellent as always.
And agree with points about Ms Budge so here is a linking post.
The blue club fans have never needed leadership more.
But the right kind of leadership.
Selfless people of vision who will rise to do the needful then move on, – people like Ms Budge.
The strategy is simple.
Unite the fans, stop supporting the club playing as Rangers immediately and create a new one starting in season 2015 2016.
The new club will have enough latent financial clout to race through the leagues if well managed.
That is the only way they can win.
That is what Real Rangers Men (with business acumen) should be advocating.
And when the owner of Ibrox (once they have left) cannot get rent or planning permission (because of the quaint stuff that makes up the way that particular council operates) they’ll probably get it back with a fire sale offer.
And like the planned Ibrox rental agreement the other onerous contracts will not be worth the paper they are printed on.
The way to beat Ashley, all the spivs and all the power hunters is by starting over with a bullet proof constitution.
Idiots guide to lunatic lending.
1 Lend 100% to purchase asset valued at £6 million (gearing100%)
2 New owner revalues asset upwardly on multiple occasions finally arriving at a value of £120 million .
3. Lend against new valuation . Say £80 million . ( gearing now 66% , looks better for audit and lenders balance sheet)
4 Assets turn out to be worthless, borrower has filled his boots on vanity project or personal payments.
5 Money long gone and borrower unable to repay loans.
6 Government bails out lender, taxpayer picks up tab
7 Loan declared bad and provided for in accounts along with £ Billions of other losses and bad loans
8 Assets sold for tiny % of loan value , often to same people who were the original borrowers
9 Revert to point 2 and the whole crazy carousel continues with taxpayers as big losers, and the only winner those who went bust and defaulted on their loans
Finloch says:
January 23, 2015 at 4:31 pm
That is what Real Rangers Men (with business acumen) should be advocating.
=======================================================
The only problem is that there seems to be a shortage of RRM who agree with your plan and have the energy to even start it – let alone see it through. AFC Wimbledon did it, even some Glazer-hating Man Utd fans did it while the club was still a going concern – and MK Dons seem to be doing a very good job of a start-up.
But is there a Pete Winkelman in Glasgow ?
Barcabhoy says:
January 23, 2015 at 4:40 pm
2 0 Rate This
======================================
Wash, rinse, repeat…
It’s true that there appear to be no facts on this old dual payments stuff..but the Hugh Adams 2012 interviews with Thomson C4 and McGarry Mail were damning!
I may be wrong but I think it was fairly common knowledge at the time way back that Murray did everything ie all the contracts and negotiating himself.
Tellingly CO I am sure gave up the ‘ paperwork’ in 1995..( had it all become too toxic for him? )
Payment War Stories at the time way back were assumed to be apochraphal and just old wives tales …..but?
In any walk of life abusers start to abuse when they have the power to abuse and typically don’t stop until caught..Murray had the power from the late 80s..no doubt!
It isn’t difficult with all that has gone on to consider the possibility that the DOS scheme was perhaps just the first effort at ‘legitimising’ all the shenanigans that had been going on for years ..it was flawed and another more sophisticated and ‘bombproof’ scheme was put in place …and we all know what happened there but did DOS simply attempt to start the ‘legitimisation’ process?
From the first time I encountered this stuff on this site and others it has also been hard to form any conclusion other than that CO was placed into The SFA in 2003 by Murray to ensure none or any of this stuff ever hit the light of day particularly any goings on pre 97 for obvious reasons .He probably thought his last stand for the cause was LNS..but if this stuff has legs ..Phew!
I guess it will a la Hillsborough be many years till it all comes out …but that said it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the bold CW was the man to bring the house down ..(again) …he and Green know how to work out precisely where a raw nerve is !
ernie says:
January 22, 2015 at 9:52 am
112 0 Rate This
Whenever I read a piece of journalism about something I know a little about, e.g. scottish fitba, and find it full of holes I use that as a reference point when reading a piece on which I know very little and rely on the journo, e.g. the Syrian situation.
———————–
Ernie,
Couldn’t agree more.
I have had the misfortune of being involved with and on occastion named in three stories in the MSM. On all three occasions, including one which was front page news across the world, the story was inaccurately reported across broadsheet, tabloid and broadcast channels.
I am sure my psedonym’s creator would spin in his grave if he knew.
I even find myself double-checking my own knowledge when the MSM agree with me!
scapaflow says:
January 23, 2015 at 10:37 am
Ashley continues to win friends and influence people
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/deplorable-mike-ashley-criticised-by-ministers-after-offers-of-help-for-sacked-worker.116682728?utm_source=headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email%2Balert
=====================================================================
MSP Inadvertently Asks a Salient Question.
Business Minister Fergus Ewing: “It’s deplorable behaviour and calls in to question whether Mike Ashley is a fit and proper person to own a football club according to the SFA rules. He is not someone I would want taking over any Scottish institution given how he’s treated these workers.”
Fergus should remember that question, it could come in handy for other buyers and directors: past, present and future.
mcfc says:
January 23, 2015 at 5:28 pm
None of the above
@charlesp_sky
Sky sources: Ibrox Stadium will NOT be used as security in any proposed loan deal involving Sports Direct; more on @SkySportsNewsHQ
Not quite the same as any loan to Sevco involving Sports Direct being unsecured.
andygraham.66 says:
January 23, 2015 at 5:46 pm
Does that mean that the ‘proposed deal’ is now off the table? Or does it just mean that the deal will not be with Sports Direct? Or is Ashley now lending them the £10m unsecured?
As has been said before, the Ibrox faithful should be carefull of what they wish for, or should that be what they demand!
Dreadful, but not unexpected statement from Ms. Budge’s Hearts.
No word of the Hearts fan attacked by a mob, or the reported smashing of a bus window.
According to her, there was no reason to expect problems,as the clubs had no previous; although they had gathered pre match “intelligence” (?).
Of what?
That the Sons of the Struth, etc., were planning a demo?
From that statement we are led to believe that all that transpired was due to an Act of God.
Poor God, gets the blame for everything!
Guys, the Sky comment specifically mentions, Ibrox, no mention of MP, or is it the the RRM, sans the unacceptable King?
https://m.facebook.com/SonsOfStruth/posts/1588045581426564
An interesting piece from Sons of Struth. Obviously I can’t vouch for the accuracy of it.
Ok. Secured status achieved. Further unsecured facilities inevitably required. Ultimate lever of Ibrox heart strings not attained, but give it time, and a few more defeats, and court cases (favourable outcomes only of course). Mike will consider it fewer steps forward than ideal. Couple of sideways steps but no territory given whatsoever. Stalemate warning ahead, which of course suits him just fine!
ThomTheThim says:
January 23, 2015 at 6:05 pm
5 3 Rate This
Dreadful, but not unexpected statement from Ms. Budge’s Hearts.
=============
I was struck by the very marked contrast between this statement and the one she made regarding Celtic’s visit to Tynecastle before Christmas. Yet from what I have read, the trouble on Friday was on a completely different scale. No mention of sectarian singing this time. I can only say that a double standard seems to apply, which greatly disappoints me. And just to be clear, I had no issue whatsoever regarding her statement after the Celtic game.
I love the first comment to the SOS article. “So obvious we’ve been the victims of corporate fraud.”
Sorry, how obvious? So so obvious in fact you’ve done precisely nothing about it.
I’ll grant you it was obvious though. To anyone reading these pages this is nothing new. As to whether it’s fraud though, or hubris driven gullibility is an entirely other matter.
The three bears have fallen out with Goldilocks? Are they getting security against Ibrox? Or does Ibrox remain unusable for security purposes, as before, for the same opaque reasons? Is Mike getting security against Murray Park? Or is that being sold? The already-stodgy plot thickens further… 😕
ps – great post BRTH 🙂
Richard Wilson @timomouse 4m4 minutes ago
@BartMain sky report Ibrox won’t be offered as security as per board. Sale and leaseback is what’s left.
ThomTheThim says:
January 23, 2015 at 6:05 pm
neepheid says:
January 23, 2015 at 6:25 pm
______________________________________
Thank goodness you both posted your comments. I was beginning to think I was paranoid. The statement is full of nothing and I am puzzled. Selfies of TRFC fans singing about ‘knees and blood’ etc but no mention of sectarian abuse?
I too have absolutely no issue regarding Ms Budge’s statement after the Celtic game.
If Ibrox is not being used then will Ashley negotiate the required loan to achieve his Plan B which was probably his Plan A in the first place?
All distraction and slight of hand stuff IMHO.
I hope ms Budge is listening to the Keevins and Dalziel show tonight where mr Keevins said both sets of fans at last Friday night’s match at ibrox caused trouble??????
Why does she have to mention sectarian singing in a statement intended to answer fans questions? If your response is “because she mentioned it in her Celtic statement” I would tentatively venture you’re kind of missing the point.
Ann Budge condemned as sectarian singing which was not sectarian. Ann Budge chose to make no comment on singing which was sectarian.
Ann Budge made claims that damage had been done in her stadium but failed to provide either photographic or documentary evidence for said claim. Ann Budge chose not to comment on photographed and documented assaults on Hearts fans.
By our words and actions are we judged.
I, for one, do not trust Ann Budge. Sorry but that’s my honestly held opinion.
Perhaps no security over Ibrox simply means that the contingent liability makes such a security impossible. Ashley, thus, won’t be lending them the pennies to pay the wages. RRM will need to step in, in my opinion, and provide unsecured funding in next few days if the whole venture is even to see out the next week.
Couple of posters on the LSE chat board are claiming that the 3 Bears have agreed to vote against King in exchange for 2 board places and they provide the loan hence no security. No EGM. To be announced Monday. Don’t know if they are nuts or if there is something in it but thought I’d share. Anyone else heard similar?
neepheid says:
January 23, 2015 at 6:25 pm
17 4 Rate This
ThomTheThim says:
January 23, 2015 at 6:05 pm
5 3 Rate This
Dreadful, but not unexpected statement from Ms. Budge’s Hearts.
=============
I was struck by the very marked contrast between this statement and the one she made regarding Celtic’s visit to Tynecastle before Christmas. Yet from what I have read, the trouble on Friday was on a completely different scale. No mention of sectarian singing this time. I can only say that a double standard seems to apply, which greatly disappoints me. And just to be clear, I had no issue whatsoever regarding her statement after the Celtic game.
*****
neepheid/Jean,
It is in light of the stance she took after the Celtic game that makes this statement disgraceful.
Like both of you, I welcome bad behaviour being called out unequivocally, but she set the tone with her public outrage of alleged graffiti in the toilets and political singing.
At the time, some online comment suggested that she was offering a hostage to fortune.
It hasn’t taken long for that to come to pass.
I thought that the excuse for not holding the Hearts fans back, after the abandonment, was that it was to cold to leave them standing about.
Had the game been played out, it would have been a damn sight colder at 9.30, especially having been exposed to the elements for a further two hours.
I’m afraid she has done her club no favours, especially as a lot of goodwill had been gathering for both herself and the club, due to their conduct post Administration.
Major own goal.
Smugas says:
January 23, 2015 at 6:46 pm
Why does she have to mention sectarian singing in a statement intended to answer fans questions? If your response is “because she mentioned it in her Celtic statement” I would tentatively venture you’re kind of missing the point.
__________________________________________________
Smugas, Ms Budge mentioned it in her general comments re Celtic game. She didn’t do that after the TRFC game. It didn’t appear in the Q&A section on the TRFC game statement.
Not like Mr Keevins to deflect criticism away from Rangers re last Fridays debacle.
gerrydoorstop says:
January 23, 2015 at 1:04 pm
Re DJ’s comments in the Evening Times….what is it about the mentality of ex players who now ply their trade in the media? Safe to say were he an ex boxer instead of a footballer he’d be a classed as punch drunk
————————————–
A serious point – I remember seeing DJ play for Scotland, against Wales I think, where a corner kick came over and he headed the ball into the goal. ‘Headed’ doesn’t begin to do it justice, if it had come off his foot it would have been one of the hardest shots I recall seeing. A few years of doing that will do you no favours further down the line right enough.
And on footballers and their non-tax from years gone by…right on cue David Conn
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/23/footballers-tax-demands-hmrc
Re DJ’s comments in the Evening Times….what is it about the mentality of ex players who now ply their trade in the media? Safe to say were he an ex boxer instead of a footballer he’d be a classed as punch drunk
————————————–
A serious point – I remember seeing DJ play for Scotland, against Wales I think, where a corner kick came over and he headed the ball into the goal. ‘Headed’ doesn’t begin to do it justice, if it had come off his foot it would have been one of the hardest shots I recall seeing. A few years of doing that will do you no favours further down the line right enough.
I remember it well….during the Home Championships it was….it was a stoater!!